Difference between revisions of "User talk:Raijinili"

From Bulbapedia, the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search
(Aura's Lucario ("PCG-P" Promo 92): new section)
(Shhh: new section)
Line 8: Line 8:
   
 
Case in point: That section you're insistent on adding is completely unnecessary. Please don't put that section back onto that article or any other article, or else you may find yourself on the outside looking in. --[[User:Shiningpikablu252|Shiningpikablu252]] 15:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 
Case in point: That section you're insistent on adding is completely unnecessary. Please don't put that section back onto that article or any other article, or else you may find yourself on the outside looking in. --[[User:Shiningpikablu252|Shiningpikablu252]] 15:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  +
  +
== Shhh ==
  +
  +
Shhh, everyone's sleeping...--[[Bulbapedia:Project Custom Sprite|<font color="brown"><small>☆</small></font>]][[User:Tavisource|<font color="teal">Tavis</font>]][[User talk:Tavisource|<font color="gray"><small>ource</small></font>]] 06:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:25, 23 October 2008

Please use the link templates. - 振霖T 11:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Go here. --PAK Man Talk 16:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Aura's Lucario ("PCG-P" Promo 92)

It's been long since decided that a calculation like that on the Bone Rush attack is not notable for the article. Do we state that Geodude from Fossil's average attack damage is 10 in a separate section? No, we don't, because attack calculations are not notable unless they have a major impact on the game (such as a format ban). The attack on the Lucario in question is very similar, only with a higher base damage. If we were to keep the section you've been insistent on adding onto this card article, we'd have to add that section onto ALL cards with damaging attacks and state their average damages. If we were to put down that Wooper from EX Unseen Forces had an average damage of 10 for its first attack and 20 for its second in a completely separate section, that would make things confusing indeed.

Case in point: That section you're insistent on adding is completely unnecessary. Please don't put that section back onto that article or any other article, or else you may find yourself on the outside looking in. --Shiningpikablu252 15:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Shhh

Shhh, everyone's sleeping...--Tavisource 06:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)